This was shortly after we put up a critical introduction pointing out his relationship to Spiked Online and the political positions he's taken on there. I'm sure these two events are completely unrelated...

Libcom makes available James Heartfield articles and books which contain useful analysis of historical events. We do not share Heartfield’s politics which evolved along with the rightward trajectory of the RCP and Living Marxism, into his current affiliation with the pro-capitalist and anti-environmentalist Spiked-online. Heartfield mischaracterized people confronting white nationalist attacks in the US as anti-free-speech, and blamed the Grenfell fire mainly on big government and “green targets,” which stifled capitalist growth models.

I'd be interested to know what the 'personal attacks' and 'mischaracterisations' are in that.

@fleur I hadn't personally picked up on TERF-ism amongst everything else, but if we still hosted the content that would have been an obvious thing to add.

James Heartfield should be banned from libcom for being a defender of bourgeois private property rights and for being a right-wing reactionary Trotskyite ideologue. Spiked-online has fucked up productivist pro-capitalist positions. Their whole elitist milieu of pompous dilettantes has more in common with white nationalists — with their free speech fetishism — than they do with anti-authoritarian working class militants on the shopflooror, in the streets, or fighting against the social relations of capital — and its defenders — anywhere.

James Heartfield should be banned from libcom for being a defender of bourgeois private property rights and for being a right-wing reactionary Trotskyite nutcase. Spiked-online has fucked up productivist pro-capitalist positions. Their whole elitist milieu of pompous dilettantes has more in common with white nationalists — with their free speech fetishism — than they do with anti-authoritarian working class militants on the shopflooror, in the streets, or fighting the social relations of capital — and its defenders — anywhere.

Hieronymus, we do not ban anyone from libcom for their views inherently (other than fascists say), but can do if people violate our posting guidelines, which James has not done so we will not be banning him.

I was disappointed when we received James's copyright takedown request, as his writings on World War II are excellent, and were a valued part of our history section. Considering some of James's writings on copyright, I didn't peg him as someone who supported capitalist copyright as such in any case.

I would echo Mike's question though about what he considers to be a personal attack or mis-characterisation as that was not our intention.

While we are primarily an online library, our policy is to preface texts by non-libertarian communist authors with a short intro spelling out our differences, which is as much for authors as for us, as authors of some articles on our site would not want to be taken to be libertarian communists when they are not!

In my world, we talk about the argument, not the person making it. If there were specific arguments in the articles that libcom posted then of course, why not append a critique. But to criticise other articles and arguments, not reproduced, and in a tendentious short-hand, that would seem to be the definition of an ad hominem argument.

What a load of trash. It's a plain fact that you're a regular contributor to that rag Spiked Online that reads no different from Breinfart, it's a plain fact that you circulated an image that portrayed the antifascists at Berkeley as being "anti-free speech", and it's a plain fact that you wrote "CO2 targets" and "the moral fervour of the climate-change campaign" were "behind" the Grenfell fire. If you need proof of any of this, just look through your own articles and social media accounts.

If informing people of your actual opinions is enough to be ad hominem, if this makes you blush in shame, maybe it's because your actual opinions make you a shitty human being.

We put up disclaimers not necessarily to critique the text they're attached to but to point out that, while the text itself may be of value, reproducing it doesn't amount to an endorsement of the author's wider work.

petey wrote:

it's not an ad hominem argument, though the other articles and arguments could be referenced, by a link say. arguments and articles are not a person.

That'd be a good suggestion if we still carried the articles on the site.

In my world, we talk about the argument, not the person making it. If there were specific arguments in the articles that libcom posted then of course, why not append a critique. But to criticise other articles and arguments, not reproduced, and in a tendentious short-hand, that would seem to be the definition of an ad hominem argument.

Doesn't really seem adhom to me, but even if it were all that means is your ok with using your proprietary powers to stifle criticism. I can see why no ones morning the death of the UK RCP.

Featured threads

Posting guidelines

Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.

Log in for more features

▶ Can comment on articles and discussions
▶ Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
▶ Bookmark articles to your own reading list
▶ Use the site private messaging system
▶ Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...